Law

Mark could use the theories of unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel to enforce Edward's promise. To use a theory of unjust enrichment, Mark must prove that he was conferred a benefit by Edward's promise and that it would be unfair for him not to receive full compensation for the benefit (due to his legitimate reliance on the promise). The elements are an act, a promise or gift, and an acceptance of the act or gift. The second theory is unfollowable obligation due to Edward's reliance on the implied condition that he would receive what he was promised if he went ahead with his fit-out plans.

In general, the elements required for such a claim include: (1) an offer and acceptance; (2) consideration; (3) an object or purpose; and (4) legality. Mark could enforce the law in several ways (Eisenberg, 2018). The legal theories for such an enforcement are contract, tort, bailment, and unjust enrichment. Mark may have a claim for unjust enrichment in the case where he has paid for all of Edward's work and is therefore entitled to any further benefit from Edward's promised pay rise.

If Mark were to file a lawsuit and win, what sort of damages or other remedies might he be entitled to? Include your reasoning and any evidence that led you to your conclusions.

The best way to answer this question is by saying that Mark might be entitled to recovery for his mental anguish and humiliation he suffered because of the wrongful termination. 1) Mental Anguish: This is a general tort action which can be construed as damage caused by other tortious actions. Mental anguish refers to a form of emotional distress caused by such things as physical abuse or a causing offense.  It is not required that the plaintiff has been in direct contact with the defendant; rather, it can also be implied from verbal statements made by them (the defendants). 2) Humiliation: Humiliation is a form of mental anguish and distress caused by shaming, degrading, or putting down another person; it may also be expressed in terms of public humiliation.

Mark is entitled to damages for his lost employment with Turnip Plaza Hotel due to Stacey’s malicious and negligent acts. He could sue for loss of income and any benefits such as stock options and rights to increases in the future. Also, he could sue for interest or a return of the money he lost if he missed out on the stock options because of Stacey's actions. Mark can sue for damages as he has been unfairly and discriminately treated by the hotel and its management after the 50% pay rise offer did not materialize. He could also seek recovery of any losses incurred due to the restructuring that led to his abrupt dismissal.

Mark has a strong case against his employer for breach of contract, for the 50% pay rise offer that did not materialize after the restructuring. Mark can also file a case against Edward for fraud since he was lured into a job at Huron Overnight Inn by fraudulent representation. In terms of actual damages, Mark may not be able to recover any lost wages as he would have gotten paid by Huron Overnight Inn had he accepted their offer. He may be able to recover loss of future potential earnings or bonus incentives which he could have earned but did not under Turnip Plaza hotel.

Mark would be entitled to punitive damages accrued to Turnip Hotel if he were to file a lawsuit and win, as the law provides for punishment and retribution for intentional acts. There is evidence that the executive at Turnip Plaza Hotel purposely tried to sabotage Mark’s career and that there was some form of malice involved.

Mark may seek for damages and remedies under the Tort Law because he would have a cause of action against Stacey, his employer, and Huron Overnight Inn their competitor. He could sue the two companies under tort law; the reason is that both companies have been involved in intentional acts which resulted in great damages done to him.  Furthermore, under tort law there are different types of legal actions that could be pursued against Stacey and Huron Overnight Inn if found guilty by a court of law. Under contract law, contract interpretation rules apply given both parties offer was never honored by any party after being accepted.

The damages that Mark can claim is a return of the 50% increase he was promised and compensation for the mental anguish and frustration he has suffered. Since Mark had worked under good conditions for over 6 years up until the event of corporate restructuring, it can be said that he has worked for Turnip Plaza Hotel as a loyal employee in good faith who did not deserve to be treated in this manner even if changes are implemented. The breach of contract by Edward is a violation of several laws (Eftekhar Jahromi and Abdolkarimi, 2018). Based on Michigan state law, a corporation is responsible for their employees’ actions, even if said employees are acting outside the scope of their employment. This means that Edward is legally obliged to pay Mark for damages caused because of his actions. When considering the evidence related to this case, this was not an isolated incident – according to Mark’s complaint, he has been fired from two different companies within 7 months (Turnip Plaza and Huron Overnight Inn).

Mark might be entitled to general damages for emotional pain, suffering and mental health expenses due to being fired from the job. Despite, this being controversial if Mark has the evidence to support the claims, Mark may receive compensation for such accusations from Turnip Hotel Management. Should Mark file a lawsuit and win, he may be entitled to damages, such as lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, and punitive damages, if they are proven to be appropriate in the context. He might also be entitled to lost wages for the duration of his employment with Turnip Plaza Hotel as well as extra benefits promised by Edward such as bonuses and profit-sharing contributions.

Turnip Plaza Hotel has a moral responsibility to fulfill the promise it made, verbally and in writing, to Mark. Moreover, two days before terminating his employment, Edward had promised Mark a promotion and increased pay in addition to the guarantee of permanent employment. The fact that Turnip Plaza makes good on this promise un-likely at best, is also an ethically questionable move. True, Huron Overnight Inn cannot be compared in terms of size with Turnip Plaza, but they too have a policy of not laying off employees during layoffs. If one hotel can maintain such policies why can’t others (Quang Trinh, 2022).

Mark has a legal right to be hired by Huron Overnight Inn but if he accepts this position and goes against the promise, he made to Turnip Plaza, it could amount to fraud. This kind of action may put him at risk of losing his job with the former employer. As ethical reasoning principle suggests, an action does not become unethical simply because it is illegal but rather because it is unjust or harmful for others. Employers will have to consider these guarantees to avoid such ethical dilemmas in the future. In turn, honesty is defined as the quest for truth and belief in the obligation not to deceive others by withholding or misrepresenting information. Honesty is also linked to respect for oneself because it respects others by not giving them false impressions or misleading beliefs about oneself.

Although Mark was laid off, his contract of work was terminated due to a corporate restructuring in Turnip Plaza Hotel. As such, the vice president would like your view on the ethical issues. There was an ethical obligation on Turnip Plaza's part to fulfill the promise made to Mark, who had given up a job offer at Hurricane Overnight Inn as well as given up his current position at Huron Overnight Inn because of Turnip's promise. It is not right to lay off Mark under these circumstances because it would put him in great hardship financially due to being unemployed for a long period and having no offers from new employers that may be willing to give him a job after he lost his current one due to Turnip Plaza's actions against him.

The research findings are related to how the facts and law came together in this situation, how is the analysis findings related to the arguments in this case study and how they consider ability of the ethical aspects in the case study. The ethical concerns expressed to Vice President Dodger in relation to the research were related mostly to confidentiality aspect and use of company funds for purpose of research without clearance from board members. In this case study, the ethical concerns expressed to Vice President Dodger in relation to the research were an employee who was enticed and later dismissed from his employment after he refused a job offer from his competitor. The case study also points out that Edward had a 50% pay rise offer for Mark but it did not come to fruition after corporate restructuring led to decimation of mark in Turnip Plaza.

The ethical principles of loyalty and justice are applicable here. Edward must uphold his promise to Mark, as he made it in good faith. At the same time, Edward can't decide unilaterally that he will be getting rid of employees without consulting his superiors, as this shows a lack of accountability. Furthermore, this will affect their relationship with the employees since it clearly contradicts what they have done in the past. Ed should bring these issues up with his superiors before any layoffs take place so that they can be informed and discuss possible solutions. Business ethics is a branch of applied ethics. It is the study of how people in business address ethical dilemmas and make ethical decisions. Business ethicists who are also philosophers may also apply principles from normative ethics to real life situations, as well as interpret moral behavior. Business ethicists who are not professional philosophers (such as corporate practitioners, consultants, and case writers) face a different task: combining insights from both normative ethics and applied philosophy to solve problems of leadership faced by managers and workers in the real world or in hypothetical scenarios (Eftekhar Jahromi and Abdolkarimi, 2018).

From: Bob Courtney, Senior Strategist at Colossal Corporation

To: Ken Dodger, Vice President at Colossal Corporation

Good morning, sir,

REFERENCES